O'Donnell - stone cold stupid

[johnhp]

Oh come on Malone.. yeah, we get it "the exact phrase" is not in there, it's the gist of it's meaning we are talking about.    Sheesh.   I saw Limbaugh defended her with the same line of thinking.   

The exact phrase is certainly not there.  The constitution is more explicit.  The constitution establishes disestablishment of religion from government as the policy of our nation.

[Velleity]

Actually she is correct....

Separation of Church and State - The Metaphor and the Constitution
"Separation of church and state" is a common metaphor that is well recognized. Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state's business and the state staying out of the church's business. Because of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state phrase," most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.

http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm

This is completely and utterly ridiculous Malone. Not only are the words as clear as they could possibly be, but we have 200 plus years of tradition and history behind the concept. Your view here is not anywhere near the mainstream view, but rather your view is far out and radical. Moreover many colonists came here to escape the Church of England, headed by the king, and religious persecution.

"allabouthistory.org."

Pfeh.

[Pepsi]

How humorous is it that these tea party nuts are out there with signs and yelling about how we need to follow the Constitution, without even having a basic understanding of what it says or means?

[johnhp]

How humorous is it that these tea party nuts are out there with signs and yelling about how we need to follow the Constitution, without even having a basic understanding of what it says or means?

i do not know that humorous is really the word.  Remember some of these idiots will be making law.

[Malone22]

This is completely and utterly ridiculous Malone. Not only are the words as clear as they could possibly be, but we have 200 plus years of tradition and history behind the concept. Your view here is not anywhere near the mainstream view, but rather your view is far out and radical. Moreover many colonists came here to escape the Church of England, headed by the king, and religious persecution.

"allabouthistory.org."

Pfeh.

Once again the words are not there, perhaps you think your interpertation is there, but the words are not.

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.

Please show me where the words in the the Constittution, not in the hearts and heads and quotes from people you like.

This imy last word on the issue...

[Pepsi]

Once again the words are not there, perhaps you think your interpertation is there, but the words are not.

Perhaps?  The intent to create a secular government is pretty clear though huh?   

[Malone22]

Perhaps?  The intent to create a secular government is pretty clear though huh?   

It is also to protect us from a state run religion.

Also how do you feel about Congress having an opening prayer, Isn't that violating separation of church and state( I am tired writng those words!)

Now that was final word

[johnhp]

Please show me where the words in the the Constittution, not in the hearts and heads and quotes from people you like.

This imy last word on the issue...

i do not blame you for making these words your last.  Why not actually address the fact that disestablishment is in the constitution.  Disestablishment is precisely what people who refer to the separation of church and state are all about.

You need to grow up and stop pretending as if people were claiming the words "separation of church and state" are in the constitution and you need to stop pretending that you are not against disestablishment of religion.

[johnhp]

It is also to protect us from a state run religion.

What do you think separation of church and state means? 

[Pepsi]

Also how do you feel about Congress having an opening prayer, Isn't that violating separation of church and state( I am tired writng those words!)

I would say yes, it is in violation of the Constitution.  I would also take it off our coins and out of the pledge.  I guess I'm a tea bagger after all, strict Constitutionalist 

[Velleity]

It is also to protect us from a state run religion.

Also how do you feel about Congress having an opening prayer, Isn't that violating separation of church and state( I am tired writng those words!)

Now that was final word

Technically it is, but it's also de minimis, I would say. It would take more than that to establish a religion.

[SpaceCadet]

From Comedy Central:

"Do you know what's great about running for the U.S. Senate? You learn all kinds of stuff about the country. Like, did you know that there's a First Amendment? Apparently, it's right there just before the Second Amendment. Who knew?

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked [her opponent Chris Coons during a debate]. When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience. "You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

It's true! I checked! And that's not all; there's all kinds of crazy shit in this thing. Like, did you know that you're not allowed to keep slaves. What?! When did this happen? Why did this not show up in my Twitter feed?

Oh, and apparently, we're not allowed to drink alcohol. Of all the fu– Wait, never mind. Yes, we can. Crisis averted, people. Crisis averted."

 

[flyboy]

It is also to protect us from a state run religion.

Also how do you feel about Congress having an opening prayer, Isn't that violating separation of church and state( I am tired writng those words!)

Now that was final word

Of course the exact wording is not in the constitution.  You really have to be thick to think that anyone would debate that when all it takes is one look at the 1st.  So your point was really pointless.  We all knew that.  Duhhhh!  And of course this is your last word on the topic because you're a wuss when you don't have your cyber bullies backing your a55.  And in answer to your question I think congress are wusses and the prayer in congress is clearly a violation of the 1st.     

[SpaceCadet]

It is also to protect us from a state run religion.

Also how do you feel about Congress having an opening prayer, Isn't that violating separation of church and state( I am tired writng those words!)

Now that was final word

Humanities scholar and author, Clay S. Jenkinson, is an expert on Thomas Jefferson and adopts the persona of President Jefferson each week on his radio show "The Thomas Jefferson Hour" (www.jeffersonhour.org).  

In the persona of President Jefferson, Dr. Jenkinson makes the point that some small facets of religion did seep into government institutions, when they probably should not.  But the nation was not as diverse then, and there was virtually no one to be offended to the point where there would be serious pushback.  Now, in a more diverse society, the courts are having to slowly roll these back, court case by court case.  The issue you have with a prayer before a football game, or a session of Congress for that matter, is that it is a very dangerous road to go down.  You could conceivably make the prayer generic enough as to not create an impression of endorsing any particular religion.  But the danger is that the officiating prayer leader only needs to make a tiny mistake, say bringing Jesus into it in some subtle way, and then you have suddenly violated the Constitution.  The safest route is to simply not engage in such a dangerous practice, especially since there is no compelling governmental reason to do so to begin with.

So the courts now have this very difficult task before them.  Should prayer be allowed in public schools?  Probably not.  Should Congress begin sessions with a prayer?  Probably not also, but there apparently has not yet been a court ruling to exclude that particular practice.

But the mere fact that the situation exists, is not justification for it.

[IM2]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

These words mean that there is going to be a separation of church and state. Congress cannot establish an national religion, but no one is restricted from celebrating any religion they choose. Thats what these words say.